Tattooing Law Changes After 33 Years: A Summary of Key Points in Tattooing Law

In the meantime Tattooing by non-medical professionals is illegal. and in fact, many procedures were performed vocally. This time Tattoo law passed is not a simple permission National Examination, Licensing, and Sanitation Management Institutionalize it Formalizing safety management standards This is significant in that it can be seen as an attempt to bridge the gap between the already popularized reality and the law and system.

 

 

https://www.mohw.go.kr/board.es?mid=a10503000000&bid=0027&list_no=1487514&act=view &

 

Definition: What's changed?

• Key changes : The Tattoo Law was passed in the National Assembly. Only tattoo artists or doctors who have obtained a license through a national examination can perform the procedure. It's done.

• period : After the 1992 case The first institutional change in 33 years no see.

• Until application : About two years of preparation period before the law goes into effect This remains.

The premise of legalization is License + State Management It does not allow unqualified procedures. Incorporation into management system

 

 

Principle: Why a national exam/license?

• background : 1992 Supreme Court A tattoo that injects pigment into the skin with a silver needle. Medical procedures with risk of infection or side effects I judged it as such.

• Reconfirm : Constitutional Court The same intention was maintained in the 2007 and 2022 reviews.

• Approach of this bill : Instead of a blanket ban Mandatory national examinations, licensing, annual hygiene education, and health checkups as Risk Management Standards was established.

 

Note: Backlash and Issues in the Medical Community

3-1. Position of the medical association

• claim : Tattooing is the act of injecting dye through the skin. Corresponds to medical practice And, Non-medical procedures are risky It raises concerns that.

3-2. Responses of Excluded Groups

• Dentists and Oriental Medicine Association is excluded from this law. They also want to be granted the right to perform the procedure. I am demanding it.

• view : There is still time left until implementation Possibility of further discussion This is mentioned.

 

Legalization = unconditional safety This is not it Whether license acquisition and hygiene standards are met is the key

 

 

What should we look forward to next?

• Industrial aspect : The voiced market public management system Go to

• Safety aspects : For testing, education, and health checkups Minimum standards Codification

• Discussion aspect : Between medical community and related organizations Qualification scope debate Sustainable

I'm not forcing any conclusions. However, in a reality that has already become popular, this system is a starting point to clarify 'who performs the procedure and by what standards.' If you are a user, License and hygiene management The perspective from which to verify will become important.